Because it was basically invented by white folks in the last 150 years and designed to appeal to those with scientific mindset. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's a little propagandistic not to acknowledge it.
IANAHistorian, and am likely well out of my depth here, but I'd venture a guess that the influence worked in both directions, due to overlap in philosophical positions. For example, from the Dalai Lama:
Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last.[1]
[0]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-davi... [1]http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-cr...
Here's a good book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195183274/
> This sweeping and sophisticated analysis of the ways in which westerners and Asians alike have constructed new forms of Buddhism under the pressures of modernity is thoroughly disillusioning, in the best sense of the word. McMahan shows that much of what has been written and said about Buddhism in the modern era only can be understood against the background of dominant western discourses.
This is astonishing. Can you let us know which buddhist principles were invented by white folks (and by whom) in the past 150 years.
I don't know to what extent individual principles or beliefs were created. Rather, the argument is that the religion as a whole was created by removing the parts that didn't fit the narrative. Think of it like the Jefferson Bible, but if pretty much the entire living tradition of Christianity was also removed from the religion instead of just redacting and rearranging the text.
Invented by white folks? What? Did you perhaps mean they made it mainstream for white people by giving it a western flavor?
I haven't really spent any time reading up on it, but they talk about it all the time on the Buddhist Geeks podcast, and presumably they'd be in the know since they are/were students at Naropa.
from the article: "There was a problem. Buddhism, as actually found in Asia, was much more like the European idea of “paganism” than a “great world religion.”"
The site relates to current academic discussion of "Real Buddhism", but the field has been investigating primary sources (Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan, Chinese) for such a long time at this point as to make this article primarily a rant about "Western Buddhism" versus the more legitimate "Buddhisms".
This article doesn't have anything to do with Western Buddhism. It's about how what people currently believe/practice as Buddhism in Asia comes from the west.
The point is that before 150 years ago there was no core set of ideas that could really be distilled into what we think of as Buddhism today. Rather there were just different peoples worshipping different local gods. Westerners then went to Asia and translated a smattering of ancient texts and then went around and told the local people that they were practicing their religion wrong, and what they should actually do/believe instead is X, Y, Z. That's what modern buddhism is, and then Western Buddhism is an offshoot of that which was designed to appeal to Americans as a practice. (As opposed to being designed to appeal to westerners as a reason not to genocide various Asian populations.)
There's quite an established corpus of Tibetan texts and monastic curriculum that has existed for the past 1000 or so years (depending on the tradition) that involve primary sources (Sanskrit Indian texts dating from 100 AD or so onwards) and developed commentary in Tibetan. It's of primary importance for every Monastery / center to have a full set of Kangyur (sutra) and Tengyur (tantra), with many of the most revered and most studied texts coming from 1300 AD or so in Ancient Tibetan, and as far back as 100 AD (Sanskrit and Tibetan translations of Sanskrit).
There is meticulous textual preservation practiced at all major Tibetan monasteries, and many have preserved texts throughout the Cultural revolution that have been confirmed by other discoveries of identical copies and translations in China, India, Ceylon, and Southeast Asia.
That's an extremely odd theory, as well, because Tibetan literally has two different forms: Modern and Ancient, and texts can be dated by their use of language, similar to Modern and Ancient Chinese, and anyone who denies that is basically equivalent of thinking fossils were buried by the Jews or the earth is 5000 years old or something equally non-factual.
It's certainly reasonable to say that there are "Buddhisms"--there were many different interpretations of primary sources in different Asian regions that continued to develop independently of each other (and merged with local custom or ritual), but it's somewhat ludicrous to say that there was "no core set of ideas" that was being actively practiced in Asia 150 years ago within specific traditions, or that what is currently practiced in Asia is "Western" at its core. You can even make a strong argument that there are a few core principles that are consistent across all branches of "Buddhism" that have little to do with Western ideas or Western religion, namely lack of self, and the composed nature of all phenomena, which have their roots in the very earliest texts, with constant development and reinforcement from ~100AD forward.
source: Master's in Religious Studies, specifically Tibetan Buddhism
If you are actually curious about this topic, I would suggest you look up the importance of lineage in the Tibetan, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Mongolian, and Japanese traditions. Warm hand to warm hand, as it is called, is extremely important. Lineage is legitimacy, and it's always the first line of defense against charlatans. That means that the most important thing in those actual traditions is where a practice comes from and who the teacher is (and their teacher, and theirs, etc.). It's even fair to say that the de-emphasis of lineage and tradition exists only in "Western" or "Mainstream" Buddhism.
If you're curious, Buddhist Geeks has long been far from the academic mainstream and has more recently gone much, much farther out.
I'm afraid I can't believe this commentator at all, because it's committing No True Scotsman fallacies left and right about non-Abrahamic religions being "not a real religion" and conflating decentralized, non-textual religions with "demon-worship."
The underlying book that inspired the post [1] does look like a much more interesting connection between the Enlightenment and deist interpretations, but Buddhism with all its warts have existed in various forms for thousands of years. At best you can say that Buddhism has been dramatically impacted by interactions with Enlightenment philosophy, but its roots definitely stretch back further than the 1800's.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0058C6FGS/?tag=meaningness...
Here are three things you need to explain just for starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borobudur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Arun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_West
And the fact Borobudur was only excavated in the mid 1800s and wasn't reconstructed until recently isn't exactly evidence that it was still considered an important part of the religion before then.